Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 2 Nov 1999 19:31:04 +0000 Received: (qmail 8319 invoked from network); 2 Nov 1999 19:30:57 -0000 Received: from spartacus.a2000.nl (HELO smtp2.a2000.nl) (62.108.1.20) by master.debian.org with SMTP; 2 Nov 1999 19:30:57 -0000 Received: from node0911.a2000.nl ([62.108.9.17]) by smtp2.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11ijds-0005Cf-00 for submit@bugs.debian.org; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:30:52 +0100 Received: (from duckie@localhost) by node0911.a2000.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-6) id UAA05351; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:30:51 +0100 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:30:51 +0100 Message-Id: <199911021930.UAA05351@node0911.a2000.nl> From: Arjan Drieman Subject: anacron: Anacron could run jobs at times system load is low. To: submit@bugs.debian.org X-Mailer: bug 3.2.6 Package: anacron Version: N/A Severity: wishlist Rob Reid, author for The Linux Gazette, wrote a script for use of cron on computers that aren't on very ofen, just like anacron. (http://linuxgazette.nllgg.nl/issue47/reid.html) After pointing Rob at anacron, he wrote me: > I prefer groundskeeper, since it optimizes a slightly different criterion: > groundskeeper will make sure that the commands are run at convienient times > for the users as closely to the specified intervals as machine uptime permits. > i.e. batch puts the job off until the CPU is able to handle it without > disrupting whatever the users are doing in the foreground. Anacron's only > advantage over groundskeeper is that if the computer is only on for a time > less than groundskeeper's check interval (say, a laptop on the subway going > into work) it would run the jobs while groundskeeper would miss its chance. > But if I turned on a computer for such a brief period, I probably WOULDN'T > want it to spend that time doing cron jobs. He has a good point. Maybe something like this could be implemented in anacron? -- System Information Debian Release: potato Kernel Version: Linux node0911 2.2.13 #1 Fri Oct 22 06:19:49 CEST 1999 i486 unknown